(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type
of RFC indicated in
the title page header?
A. draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-02 draft is a 'standards track' document. This
intended status is indicated in the document header. The document introduces a
new 6lo Routing header type for the 6loRH packet defined in RFC8138.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
RFC 8138 specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH),
compression schemes for RPL routing (source routing)
operation [RFC6554], header compression of RPL Packet
Information [RFC6553], and IP-in-IP encapsulation. This document
specifies a new Deadline-6LoRHE type for the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1,
so that the deadline time of data packets can be included within the
6LoWPAN routing header. This document also specifies handling of the
deadline time when packets traverse through time-synchronized
networks operating in different timezones or distinct reference clocks.
Time synchronization is not mandated in this document, rather it points to
different available time synchronization solutions for low power and lossy
networks.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular
points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
A. Working group has provided many input towards development of the document
during the initial phase before it is becoming a WG document. Once these
comments were incorporated into the document, the draft went for successful
adoption call. After that two reviewers provided thorough comments including
the shepherd. Working group has a rough consensus to move this draft towards
IESG submission.
Document Quality:
The document is has been clarified with editorial changes in -02. A few more
nits need to be updated as mentioned in the shepherd's comments. Other than
that , it is ready.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)?
In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
A.
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-01 has been implemented in open source OpenWSN
environment and got merged with the main distribution.
The github links for this is available at:
https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/tree/develop/openapps/uexpirationhttps://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/pull/355
The shepherd or working group are unaware of any forthcoming vendor
implementation of the document, however openwsn source code is used by many low
power vendors(6tisch).
The working group has provided feedback to the document -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/?q=6lo-deadline-time
Geoorge Papadopoulos and Samita Chakrabarti reviewed the recent document
version -01. Previously the working group commented on the non-working group
version of the document and the comments are available at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/?q=6lo-expiration
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti, Responsible Area Director: Suresh
Krishnan
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version
of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document
is being forwarded to the IESG.
A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -01 version of the document. The -02
reflects comments from document shepherd and George Papadopoulos. The document
is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
A. The document has been reviewed by many working group members throught its
journey.The working group
agrees to make it a standard track document. Document shepherd has no
particular concerns on the reivews.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so,
describe the review that took
place.
A. Not applicable.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the
Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example,
perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail
those concerns here.
A. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is
ready to advance.
A note to the Area Director: A few references to
draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-05 should be changed to RFC 8138.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
A. No IPR disclosures had been filed by the co-authors of the document.
Confirmation with each author is
in progress.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. A. No
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of
this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
A. No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No issues found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type,
and URI type reviews.
A. Not Applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
A. Yes. However, the 6tisch-terminology reference may be moved to "informative"
section.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an
unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their
completion?
A. No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references
to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
A. None except the reference of 6tisch-terminology document.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the
title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.
No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to
its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that
newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested
(see RFC 5226).
A. The document requests an IANA change.It introduces a new 6loRH type. The
value is left as TBD. Version -02
draft does not clearly state if this IANA reigistry will fall into Critical
6LoRH type or Elective 6loRH type assignments or both.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public
guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for
these new registries.
A.https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the
document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
definitions, etc.(1) What type of
RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?
A. Manual checks are performed by the shepherd. The document is seeking
Standards track.